The difference between Wii & PS2 graphics?
- Thread starter mrhappyface
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What? Really? You mean that you can't see the shading lines or breaks in texture in the PS2 game? Or more noticeably the lack thereof on the Wii. I mean, it's pretty obvious to anyone who actually looks at the pictures that the detail put into the...oh.ProfessorLayton said:I actually think that the PS2 has better graphics. I mean...
is undeniably better than
*Bemused look*
*Puts hands on hips*
You let your seeing-eye-dog on the computer again didn't you? Wow, you almost had me going there. If I hadn't figured out that you were blind then I would have, well, I don't know, thought you were really ignorant and stupid or something. Well, now that that's over with, do you mind not letting your dog on the forums anymore? He's kind of mucking up our discussion. Thanks!
Back to the
Ever since the Gamecube, Nintendo seem to distance themselves from the xbox/ps graphics war. Nintendo's next gen stuff always seem to be more of a revolution (exploring new concepts) rather than the xbox/ps's evolutions (improving on what they previously had). They also seemed to pride themselves on the fact that they didn't need over-used violence and great graphics to make a fantastic game, just a compelling story, brilliant design and solid gameplay.
That's why I have always stuck with Nintendo...well until the decent game shortage they seem to be having in which I got a 360, but I will try to remain loyal to Nintendo until the decent game shortage becomes a drought
That's why I have always stuck with Nintendo...well until the decent game shortage they seem to be having in which I got a 360, but I will try to remain loyal to Nintendo until the decent game shortage becomes a drought
I thought it was taken as a given that the Wii was never designed to compete with the 360 or Ps3 on graphics? This isn't exactly news
Certainly it has not the most advanced graphics. But significant graphics improvements are becoming increasingly more expensive to achieve, and since consoles are sold at a loss this is an increasingly big problem.
Nintendo is trying a different route. Graphical comparisons are meaningless unless another company is pursuing a similar strategy. And the PS2 was never designed to attract to grow the market like the Wii, they hit the market at too different times.
Certainly it has not the most advanced graphics. But significant graphics improvements are becoming increasingly more expensive to achieve, and since consoles are sold at a loss this is an increasingly big problem.
Nintendo is trying a different route. Graphical comparisons are meaningless unless another company is pursuing a similar strategy. And the PS2 was never designed to attract to grow the market like the Wii, they hit the market at too different times.
The Wii has last gen graphics tech, but the processing power is much greater in the Wii than any last gen console, allowing the Wii to do more with game mechanics, and can run more smoothly while pushing the dated graphics technology. The thing is, a lot of shovelware blows all of that extra power on managing meaningless motion controls that are poorly optimized, but companies that know how to make proper use of that extra power will receive a pay-off in the form of better graphics on the Wii.
Also, good graphics cards are huge (Anyone who has built a PC can vouch for this,) and this is why the Wii is capable of being incredibly small, while the 360 and PS3 are considerably larger.
So yes, the Wii has bad graphics, but it has decent processing power. Sure, it isn't on the same level as the 360 or PS3, but hey, gameplay has to count for something. Unfortunately, most games on the Wii have terrible controls, and shoddy gameplay, with a few exceptions, like Super Mario Galaxy, LoZ:tTP, and No More Heroes. While it is the gimp of the current generation, it still is better than last generation.
Also, good graphics cards are huge (Anyone who has built a PC can vouch for this,) and this is why the Wii is capable of being incredibly small, while the 360 and PS3 are considerably larger.
So yes, the Wii has bad graphics, but it has decent processing power. Sure, it isn't on the same level as the 360 or PS3, but hey, gameplay has to count for something. Unfortunately, most games on the Wii have terrible controls, and shoddy gameplay, with a few exceptions, like Super Mario Galaxy, LoZ:tTP, and No More Heroes. While it is the gimp of the current generation, it still is better than last generation.
really dude, i dont personally like the wii, except for madworld...that game was epic.... but they made god of war epic because they wanted to make it better than the first, and even though i dont like racing games gran turismo has always been pretty good with that stuff, i guess the wii is more family based and graphics dont really mater as much to the casual gamer
Processor clock speeds != Tech specsJazoni89 said:
Well, it is an element of the technical specifications, but listing clock speeds doesn't really help much.
By that logic, the Intel P4 @ 3GHz is comparable in processing power to the Core i7 @ 3GHz. Maybe I'm not following the same logic, given that the P4 is a single core CPU vs the i7 which is a quad, but ignoring everything else and focusing on clock speeds is just as wrong.
Furthermore, even if we do regard clock speeds as an accurate measurement of processing power (which we never should), you still can't claim to say much about the console itself by looking at the specs alone.
As for the main topic of the thread, I think most of the other posts covered the fact that the Wii never aimed towards graphical improvements. It was a relatively small improvement over the 'cube graphically, which allowed them to keep production cost down (and in effect, the retail cost) and focus on the control innovation. This strategy was followed in order to appeal to a much wider audience, both because of the way the game is played (the WiiMote resembles a TV remote which everyone is accustomed to, hence the name) and because of the console cost. And in my very humble opinion, the sales figures indicate that the strategy worked.
Serris said:
Add to all that the fact that Nintendo has raised its reputation (and profit margins) for the first time since the launch of the N64, and I think that 'all of that will be for nothing' statement is fortunately mistaken. In the unlikely event that Wii's sales will drop incredibly after Microsoft and Sony's counterparts come out, Old Ninty has some incredibly sturdy ground to move forward from. I just hope that when that time comes they keep up the backward compatibility.
Shading lines and breaks in the texture? So, if a game doesn't even try to add shading or textures, all of the sudden the graphics are better? That makes absolutely no sense at all. I have no idea how you could possibly think that the PS1 grade graphics of the Conduit look anything at all better than SotC. And honestly, there is no reason to insult me because I pointed out that the PS2 game obviously has better graphics. So there were some slight technical problems, but there is no way that you could say that it looks better.muffincakes said:
Yes, I could. Yes, I did. Yes, I will again. It is obviously not better, and you should wear glasses. Also, claiming that a game 'doesn't even try to add shading or textures' when it has instead not been able to after its technical limitations have been met is just ludicrous. I shall just go ahead and assume that you are a ravenous fanboy who lacks reason, and like Old Yeller, I must put you down.[End Scene]ProfessorLayton said:
[Camera backs away as the shotgun is loaded. As the screen fades to black, a single shot rings out]
[Roll Credits]
Because it can't doesn't mean it's better. Saying that Hitler was a great painter because it was the best he could do doesn't make him a better painter than Michelangelo. Technical limitations or not, it's not relative to the system's hardware, it's relative to each other. It seems like you are the fanboy in this situation and that you are ignorantly accusing me. In fact, Professor Layton and the Curious Village is only available on the Nintendo DS which is in fact a Nintendo console which is also held back by graphical limitations. But saying that Professor Layton has the best graphics ever would be untrue. Although it does look amazing if I do say so myself, that doesn't make it the best just because it's pushing the limitations of a handheld console.muffincakes said:
Alright, I think I've finally understood where you are coming from, and I would like to point out that your comparisons are quite flawed. Since we aren't talking about graphical power based upon the technology at hand, and just how it looks, you cannot just pick two pictures at random and think that makes a proper comparison. For example, doesProfessorLayton said:
If you want a comparison, it has already been posted. Watch this and you can see for yourself the Wii graphics being superior to the PS2.
Problem is, the Wii graphics don't look all that much better. Yeah, they look better in the few instances where the designers took time to really work with the system, but the games aren't like those on the PS3 and 360. Certainly not visually.
Still, that business model seems to have worked for Nintendo, so who am I to gripe. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing worse graphics across the industry as a whole if it would bring prices down. At the end of the day, the game itself (gameplay, story) is worth more to me than the way it looks. Presentation matters, but not all THAT much. Bioshock would be a crap game if it had crap gameplay. Shinobi (PS2) looks extremely plain but plays very well. The GBA Fire Emblem games are about as simple as you can get visually with strategy titles (fairly-recent ones, anyhow), but they still rule.
But yeah, looking at the Wii library and graphics, I definitely wouldn't fork over Current Gen amounts of cash for a system or games.
Oh, and anything other than same-game comparisons are crap. I can cherry-pick a game from any system and compare it with another game from another system made in the same decade and show why game X is better-looking than game Y. It's not a fair comparison. Different devs do (or don't) take advantage of a system's graphics in different ways. To compare games early in the Wii life cycle to late PS2 games is particularly unfair.
Still, that business model seems to have worked for Nintendo, so who am I to gripe. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing worse graphics across the industry as a whole if it would bring prices down. At the end of the day, the game itself (gameplay, story) is worth more to me than the way it looks. Presentation matters, but not all THAT much. Bioshock would be a crap game if it had crap gameplay. Shinobi (PS2) looks extremely plain but plays very well. The GBA Fire Emblem games are about as simple as you can get visually with strategy titles (fairly-recent ones, anyhow), but they still rule.
But yeah, looking at the Wii library and graphics, I definitely wouldn't fork over Current Gen amounts of cash for a system or games.
Oh, and anything other than same-game comparisons are crap. I can cherry-pick a game from any system and compare it with another game from another system made in the same decade and show why game X is better-looking than game Y. It's not a fair comparison. Different devs do (or don't) take advantage of a system's graphics in different ways. To compare games early in the Wii life cycle to late PS2 games is particularly unfair.
Actually, they can brag that THEY came up with idea first.Hardcore_gamer said:
Though I think in the next gen., Nintendo will stay the odd ones out by jumping back onto controller based without the motion control, at least I hope. Maybe they'll spend the extra money on new franchises or something, and will get sales based on those people who don't want to wave their arms anymore.